Australian Jade Mining Limited v Li [2021] NSWCA 251

Australian Jade Mining Limited v Li [2021] NSWCA 251

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success and the appellants provided no reasonable explanation for filing the Notice of Appeal late. Ground 1 was unavailable because the appellants had admitted the relevant payments, had not pleaded the point about the source or ownership of the funds, and sought to raise a new point on appeal that could have been met by evidence below. Ground 2 failed because the second appellant could be personally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct he personally made. Ground 4 failed because the pleadings and evidence supported the finding that the $184,692.90 payment was made pursuant to the Investment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a District Court of New South Wales Civil Judgment; Application to Extend Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal / Notice of Appeal Filed Out of Time; Respondent Sought Dismissal and Appellants Sought an Extension of Time
Outcome
Extension of time declined and appeal dismissed as out of time; appellants ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'personal Liability of Company Director' 'new Point on Appeal' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'consumer Law'] ['extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'personal Liability of Company Director' 'new Point on Appeal' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a District Court of New South Wales Civil Judgment; Application to Extend Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal / Notice of Appeal Filed Out of Time; Respondent Sought Dismissal and Appellants Sought an Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for filing the Notice of Appeal' 'Whether the proposed appeal had realistic prospects of success' 'Whether the appellants had a reasonable explanation for the delay' 'Whether the respondent suffered loss where the payments were sourced from his mother' 'Whether the second appellant could be personally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct' 'Whether the payment of $184,692.90 was made in reliance on the misleading and deceptive conduct and pursuant to the Investment Agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success and the appellants provided no reasonable explanation for filing the Notice of Appeal late. Ground 1 was unavailable because the appellants had admitted the relevant payments, had not pleaded the point about the source or ownership of the funds, and sought to raise a new point on appeal that could have been met by evidence below. Ground 2 failed because the second appellant could be personally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct he personally made. Ground 4 failed because the pleadings and evidence supported the finding that the $184,692.90 payment was made pursuant to the Investment...

Court Disposition

Extension of time declined and appeal dismissed as out of time; appellants ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Decline to extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal on the basis that it is out of time.' "Order the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]